Don's Tuesday Column

         THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson  Red Bluff Daily News   12/01/2015

           Scrutiny for Reps, not for Dems

In a postscript for the Thanksgiving commemoration/holiday/shop-athon, from President Lincoln’s 1863 proclamation, his recognition of that for which we—even over 150 years later—still have to give thanks: “The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God.”

Events have driven the news cycle: the economy, terrorism, Donald Trump’s latest self-created outrage, refugees, climate conferences, etc. I still find the November media storm over Dr. Ben Carson’s biography fascinating. First, you had intense scrutiny of the media’s object of dismemberment-by-analysis; such scrutiny is designed to create a maximum kerfuffle of conflicting, unverifiable narratives. Then comes deflection from how that same scrutiny could be applied to persons and issues on the left side of the spectrum with devastating effect. That then all gets swept into the memory hole before the news media can be held to account for gross, biased malpractice.

In a number of cringe-worthy episodes, the collective news media gave Carson the type of biographical anal exam previously seen in the hysterical reaction to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s arrival on the Republican ticket in 2008. The title of John Nolte’s article says it all: “WSJ, CNN, Politico Debunked: Anti-Carson bio Attacks Crumble Under Scrutiny.” (Look it up)

That would be in contradistinction to the ho-hum treatment of then-Senator Obama’s easily examined, questionable and troubling biography. I say “easily examined” in the sense that several writers on the right, seeing the news media swoon over the potential election of America’s first black president (together with all of the expected racial healing…it hasn’t worked that way, though), did dig into Obama’s history.

Stanley Kurtz produced his exhaustive reference in 2010, “Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.” I wrote weekly columns in 2008 that each took a different aspect of the duplicity and hypocrisy of Obama’s life, and policy positions, running out of time well before I ran out of material, by the November election.

The media frenzy over Carson’s story succeeded only in drawing attention to his remarkable rise from the life-and-hope-destroying realities of a gritty and violent urban life, and a single-mother, to become one of the world’s foremost leaders in a highly specialized field of neurosurgery. The preposterous efforts, the overblown rhetoric and faux gotcha moments—in embarrassing service of a shameless campaign to undermine Carson’s veracity—were only marginally successful. Not one aspect of his younger life was revealed as phony: he was a violent youth that reformed through religion and could, however, have gone to West Point had he not chosen the medical field.

National Review’s John Fund illustrated the double standard in “Ben Carson: Where Was the Media’s Interest in Obama’s Relation to the Rev. Wright, Frank Davis, Bill Ayers…?” Jonathon M. Seidl, writing in June, 2012, at The Blaze (theblaze.com), reviewed a book by The Washington Post’s David Maraniss, “Barack Obama: The Story” (Maraniss—not right-of-center). 

Seidl’s piece, “Details in New biography of Obama Lead to Stunning Conclusion: ‘Deliberate Distortions’ and ‘Mythmaking’” (searchable by title), lays out “Maraniss’ idea that Obama’s memoir, ‘Dreams From My Father,’ was riddled with fiction and composite characters…and is now leading to some stunning conclusions.” Maraniss “catalogues dozens of instances in which Obama deviated significantly from the truth in his book.” Ben Smith: “By its conclusion I counted 38 instances in which the biographer convincingly disputes significant elements of Obama’s own story of his life and his family history.”

Just before the 2008 election, asked at a conference if the media have been too soft on Obama, Maraniss answered “Yes.” He went on to say that through the subtle choice of which stories to cover and where to deploy investigative resources, the national media had handed Obama “hundreds of millions of dollars in free publicity.”

The blatant double standard could be applied to the current presumed Democrat presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton. A cartoon by Stiglich of Creators.com portrayed Hillary as a blond-maned, four-legged equine uttering blatant fabrications: “Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11,” “I landed in Bosnia under sniper fire,” “We were dead broke when we left the White House,” “The Benghazi attack was the result of a video,” “What emails?” This picture of serial-fabulist Clinton was titled, “My Little Phony.”

One could add her tortured assertion of rejection when trying to join the Marines, a story that oozes disingenuousness when compared to the then-current agenda by leftists to prove how sexist and chauvinist America’s military were. What a crock: Approach a recruiter as a 27-year old, out of shape woman with bad eyesight so as to be able to claim discrimination. That’s worse than lying. She also tried to join NASA, was “always” a Yankees fan, and lied about her wealth.

Don’t worry your little heads about conflicts-of-interest, though. Not from George Stephenopoulos, who donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Certainly not from Chuck Todd (whose corporate employer had an executive hold a fundraiser for Hillary early in November).